moved the farther consideration of the Report. He said, there had been a mistaken feeling in the House on Tuesday night, that it was the intention of his Majesty's ministers to give magisterial powers to persons not connected with the disturbed counties, or not connected with the landed interest. Government meant no such thing, but merely to consign this authority to the sons of peers, and of persons qualified to sit in parliament, who though not in fact qualified to act, were peculiarly entitled to the confidence of the country.

spoke against the Bill, and was proceedings to give a detail of the proceedings in the Irish rebellion, when he was called to order by Mr. Huskisson, who desired the Speaker to read the question.—General Tarleton persisting in his right to allude to Ireland, was again proceeding on that subject, when Mr. Wallace rose to order. General Tarleton said, he would come to the point, which was, whether the noble lord, though be might have courage enough to sink with the Royal George, was fit to guide the state vessel in a storm? He concluded by protesting against the Bill.

The Report was then taken into farther consideration, and the Bill was re-committed.

objected to the clause empowering magistrates to search for arms on surmise and frivolous pretences. Such powers should only be given after information furnished on oath. He recommended the employment of the military rather than the civil power.

would not wish the learned gentleman to turn his back on the civil and constitutional power. He allowed that it was proper to entertain a jealousy on the subject of searching for arms, but it should be recollected, that it was not mandatory on the magistrates to exercise this power in every instance, but left to their discretion to employ it only where it might be deemed absolutely necessary. In case of abuse of this power, the Bill furnished the subject with redress. The noble lord concluded by contending, that if in a period like the present, checks were imposed to encumber the authority of magistrates, they would be enabled only feebly to torment the community, and not to protect it.

wished to know, what was the precise security against abuse of power in the magistrates: and read several extracts from the proclamations issued during the Irish rebellion, to shew to what excess this power might be carried, and how liable it was to the most extravagant misapplication. The abuses which prevailed in Ireland under similar powers, was enormous. Lord Cornwallis, in his opinion, saved that country, but it was by measures of lenity and mildness. He wished the same course to be pursued here. He thought the powers of the law fully sufficient, and that they had been exercised with sufficient rigour: a woman had been executed as an example to women, and a child as an example to children.

thought there was no similitude between abuses which the army might have committed in Ireland, and the powers which were prepared to be vested an the magistracy. As to the good which had been said to have been done by repealing the Orders in Council, he must consider, that the system of robbing houses to get arms had nothing to do with the Orders in Council, but was part of a system of the agitators to break out at some future time against the government. Against such practices, some strong measures were absolutely necessary.

said, that the act in Ireland entirely failed of the effect it was intended to produce, and the only arms given up were spare arms given by the rebels, in order to save their houses from being burned. He had a high respect for the magistracy of this country, and hardly knew how to oppose any measure that the inhabitants of the disturbed districts should consider necessary to their preservation. He, however, thought great abuses were probable, when a single magistrate might act in this manner on suspicion, or on the information of such a description of spies as were now going abroad.

said, he saw no reason for the distinction of requiring two or more magistrates to sign the warrant in the case of receiving arms, and in not requiring it in the case of the search for arms stolen or collected for improper purposes. He therefore moved, as an amendment to the clause, that instead of giving the power to one justice of the peace, it should be to two or more magistrates in both cases.

said, that when it was only to receive arms from those persons in whose houses they were not sufficiently secure, time might be well allowed to apply to two justices; but when a search was to be made for arms stolen, as in many places there were not two in the neighbourhood, it would defeat the very object of the search if there were to be such delay. It was certainly possible, that, with all the care that might be taken, some abuses would take place; but in all those considerations, one must balance the degree of abuses to be apprehended against the advantages to be expected from the adoption of the measure.

saw no reason for the distinction which was made, except in the case of an immediate pursuit to be made after the robbers who had stolen the arms. But if a magistrate were to grant his warrant merely on general suspicion, or the information of his spies, he thought it would be very useful that he should be required at least to convince some other magistrate that the suspicion was reasonable. When it was considered out of what description of persons constables might be taken to execute these warrants, and that they might take whom they would for their assistants, there was every reason to expect great abuses in acting upon them. An Englishman's house would be no longer his castle. When he was summoned in the dead of the night to open his doors, and give up his arms, he might possibly take the constables party for general Ludd's people, and shoot one of them. He respected highly the magistracy of the country in general, and thought no character more amiable or useful than a man of fortune who spent his time in doing justice among his neighbours gratuitously, and in reconciling their differences. There was a sort of justices of peace, however, for whom he could feel no such respect. There were men of very small fortunes most anxiously soliciting to be made justices, with the view of increasing their personal importance, and recommending themselves to the government as most active magistrates. Their activity would be their recommendation; and the number of people whom they had taken up would be their pride. Now, he did not wish to see this description of justices of the peace armed with so much power; neither did he conceive it safe to arm with it the magistrates of every petty borough town. If the mayor and aldermen of those towns were to have such extensive powers, they might abuse them very much in every ferment arising from an election. He could not approve either of allowing two or more magistrates to determine from what qualified persons arms were to be taken, or from whom they were not to be taken. If a blind man, to be sure, had arms in his house, they might pronounce that he could not make use of them, and might as well give them up; but when the arms were in the possession of a man that had eyes and good health, how could the two magistrates determine whether they were safe or not? What means had they to pronounce upon the courage of each individual, or his power to retain his arms? If the arms were to be taken from a man on the ground of their not being safe, he should conceive that an imputation either to his loyalty or his courage, and the latter imputation might be just as painful to his feelings as the former. He would declare as a member of the Secret Committee, that he did not believe there was any depot of arms made for the purpose supposed; that he did not believe 200 stand of arms had been taken altogether, and that he believed the arms that were stolen were for the purpose of defending the nocturnal depredators in their excursions, and not for the purpose of making war upon the government or the army. He did not believe that what was called drilling among them amounted at all to learning the use of arms or military discipline. Indeed, he learned very little more from being a member of the committee, than he had been informed by the newspapers before; and every new information that he had got, diminished, instead of increasing, the alarm he before felt. He was as well convinced as any man that these nocturnal meetings and destructions of property ought to be prevented, but he did not think it necessary for the prevention of them, that Englishmen should no longer be allowed to conceive their home their castle; at all events, he thought, the ground proposed by his hon. friend (Mr. Giles) would be right, and that it should be left at least to the opinion of two magistrates, before a power so rigorous should be exercised.

supported the clause, as being essentially necessary.

approved of the authority being vested in two magistrates, though in other respects thought the clause highly essential.

also concurred in thinking the clause in question the essential part of the Bill.

contended, that if a single magistrate could not act, but must wait, in all instances, till two magistrates could be found, the hands of the magistrates must be completely tied up, and that it would be better to leave out the clause altogether.

said, there would be the greatest difficulty in many parts of Lancashire, of getting two magistrates together; and if the clause was so amended it would be totally ineffectual.

also enforced the necessity of vesting the power in one magistrate only.

supported the original clause.

, also supported it, and observed, that with regard to its operation, nothing unpleasant could result from it, provided no illegal and tumultuary resistance was offered.

said, that he certainly did not mean to have offered a word in the committee, reserving his objections against the principle of the Bill, upon the report being brought up; but what he had heard from the hon. gentleman who spoke last, and from other members, induced him to depart from that resolution. His hon. friend who spoke last had maintained that, with regard to the operation of the Bill, there could be no strife where there was no opposition; certainly that was true, and so he might have said that no rape could be committed where there was no opposition. His objections to the clause in question were strong. It went, not only to take the arms from the suspected disloyal, but from the man who was suspected of timidity. The Bill was intended to provide against the forcible seizure of arms; and yet, what did the law in question propose to do? To emulate, to copy, the very crime it condemned. It was empowering its own agents to plunder arms from all who had them in possession. And at what time was it so acting? At a moment when we were told the crisis of our affairs was such, that we ought to be an armed nation! Yet, the government were now trying to make us a disarmed nation. And where was the cause? Did the people for whose sake it was pretended they were legislating, ask it of the government? Did they grovel at the feet of ministers, did they crawl upon their knees before them, and supplicate to be disarmed? Did they say, we are too dastardly to defend ourselves, take from us our arms, for we cannot use them, and keep them in your custody? No! He denied the people of England were yet so base, were yet so degraded! He denied also, that there was any necessity now for the measure at all. He denied it on the face of the Report. The whole business reminded him of the sham plots and conspiracies of 1793. He remembered what were the alarms and fictions of that period. He remembered when it was spread abroad, that vast funds were collected in order to support the disaffected and organize them; and yet it was proved upon oath at the Old Bailey, that the whole amount of those funds was 9l. 15s. That was their exchequer. Another report too of a conspiracy at that period he remembered, with all the additions of arms, training, &c. And how did it turn out? Nine tailors and one pike were discovered in a back garret in Tooleystreet, in the borough. He recollected, also, that such was the eagerness to find plots at that time, that a magistrate said to him on the occasion, "No young and tender mother ever dwelt with more fondness upon her first-born child, than we did upon that pike!" He could not help expressing his decided objection to the Bill, framed as it was upon the Report of a committee where no evidence was permitted to guide their decision. He would have had every sort of parole evidence; examinations and cross-examinations, full and substantial proof, before the government dared to suspend the constitution of the country. In the worst exigencies of Ireland, no such law as the present was proposed. A power for disarming the people indeed was granted, and so was a certain power to magistrates, but they were somewhat different. He well remembered the discussions at that period. He well remembered the foul and unmanly debates in that House, when it was a question about searching for arms in the women's bed chambers, as to how long a woman might be allowed to dress in, before she opened the door for the officers to search. Some gentlemen proposed seven minutes; he without any great effort of chivalrous feeling, ventured to suggest ten minutes; but the noble lord opposite proposed that a reasonable time should be granted, which was at last carried. That art, however, which originated with his right hon. friend, (Mr. Pole), much to his honour, did not confer any thing like the powers upon magistrates intended to be conferred by the present Bill. No magistrate had power to search for arms upon suspicion, but upon oath; and information was to be transmitted to the lord lieutenant, and an authority from him, or from his chief secretary, was to be granted before the magistrate could act: thus making the executive government responsible.—(Here Mr. Sheridan read one or two of the clauses.) Good God (continued the right hon. gentleman,) compare the two occasions!—Compare the two acts! Compare the provocations in the one country and in the other! He should have thought there was some wisdom in the proceedings of ministers, did there now exist any perils—but they came like sea-gulls, screaming when the storm was over. Another and a sufficient remedy had been applied: the disturbances were confessedly decreasing, and yet such a measure as the present, which could only have the effect of irritating, was to be proposed. He hoped he had put the intended clause in such a light as would make it impossible it should remain.

said, he was not at all surprised at the conclusion to which the right hon. gentleman had come, as he totally disbelieved the Report of the committee. Certainly, if that Report was false, there could be no occasion for such a measure as was now proposed, and every person thinking with the right hon. gentleman must come to the same conclusion. It was lucky for the right hon. gentleman, however, that he had no local knowledge which justified the Report. He contended, however, that the facts contained in the Report were such as fully justified the Bill, and he cautioned the House how it gave credit to the delusion that, because the disturbances were now suspended, during the assizes, and while parliament was deliberating upon them, that therefore they had ceased. He could state, however, that very recent intelligence had arrived of intimidation having been used, threatening the lives of persons if they gave evidence against those who were to be tried. He deprecated the levity with which the subject had been treated by the right hon. gentleman. The object of the clause was to keep the arms of the people in safe custody, and prevent the insurgents from getting them. He had alluded also to Ireland; but he wished he had read the date of the act from which he had some clauses. Was not the date 1810? And was that the period when Ireland was convulsed with outrages? How easily the right hon. gentleman believed outrages that did not exist, and disbelieved them when they did exist! In fact, that act which he had alluded to, had been passed, because all disturbances had ceased in Ireland, and it was intended to mitigate the provisions of the act of 1797. He would ask the right hon. gentleman what had been the act in force for 13 years before 1810?

warned the committee against subjecting themselves to the great responsibility of legislating in utter ignorance of the true nature of those proceedings which had been laid down as a precedent. It had been again asserted by the noble viscount, that no tortures, no excesses of any kind had been committed against the people of Ireland, previous to the commencement of the rebellion in 1798. He (Mr. H.) had in his place upon a former night denied that assertion, and he now rose again to give that assertion of the noble lord's his most unqualified contradiction. He was therefore at complete issue with the noble viscount, and he was prepared to prove by evidence at their bar, that he was too well grounded in the charges he then made. He solemnly charged the government of lord Camden, of which the noble lord was for a considerable period the ostensible part, and for the whole period the confidential adviser; he solemnly charged that government with permitting torture throughout Ireland before the rebellion. "I assert," said Mr. Hutchinson, "that under the eyes of that government, for two long years before the rebellion, the people of Ireland were suffering under every infliction of outrage that could goad them to resistance. I assert, that for two years before the rebellion, the system of infliction was prosecuted through every means of torture and outrage, breaking open of houses at the dead of night, flogging, picketting, burning, half-hanging, violation of women, depredation of property, licenced plunder, legalized murder—horrors, that but to think of was sufficiently dreadful—to detail disgusting. To be conscious that they once happened might have its use in warning an English House of Commons, how they opened an avenue for the introduction of such calamities. (Hear, hear!) They knew not what Ireland had suffered—let them beware how they took the first step that was to lead this country to a knowledge of such misery.—He again solemnly pledged himself if required, to prove at their bar by undoubted evidence the truth of all the assertions he had advanced.

The committee then divided—Ayes 77; Noes 18; Majority 59.

A second division took place on the clause, empowering magistrates to lodge in a safe depot the arms so taken.—Ayes 75; Noes 16; Majority 59.—The House then resumed, and the Report was ordered to be received to-morrow.